Article views: 9564

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [177.103.80.35] Date: 01 April 2017, At: 08:16

Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects EYTAN GILBOA

This study offers three conceptual models to promote systematic research into uses of themedia as a major instrument of foreign policy and international negotiations: publicdiplomacy, where state and nonstate actors use the media and other channels ofcommunication to influence public opinion in foreign societies; media diplomacy, whereofficials use the media to communicate with actors and to promote conflict resolution; andmedia-broker diplomacy, where journalists temporarily assume the role of diplomats andserve as mediators in international negotiations. The first two models, while previouslydefined, undergo serious revision in this study. The third model is new. This articledemonstrates the analytical usefulness of the models through applications to variousexamples and case studies of significant contemporary diplomatic processes.

In his classic study of diplomacy, Nicolson complained that the term

'diplomacy' was used to describe a constellation of differentphenomena including foreign policy, negotiation, means to pursuenegotiation, one of the areas of the foreign service, and a talent fornegotiation.1 Nonetheless, three of these uses refer directly tonegotiation and the remaining two also involve aspects ofnegotiation. In this study 'diplomacy' refers primarily tointernational negotiation, to a communication system through whichrepresentatives of states and international or global actors, includingelected and appointed officials, express and defend their interests,state their grievances, and issue threats and ultimatums. It is achannel of contact for clarifying positions, probing for information,and convincing states and other actors to support one's position.2 Traditional diplomacy was highly formal, institutional,interpersonal, slow, and usually protected by secrecy.3 In his famous'Fourteen Points' speech of 1918, President Woodrow Wilsonadvocated 'open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after whichthere shall be no private international understandings of any kind butdiplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view',4 thusheralding what came to be known as the 'new diplomacy'. This wasprimarily associated with exposing diplomacy to the media andDiplomacy & Statecraft, Vol.12, No.2 (June 2001), pp.1-28PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON2 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

public opinion, and with direct and unmediated conduct of

negotiations by politicians and high-ranking officials, including headsof state and ministers.s The issue of whether such exposure isbeneficial or not has been a subject of much debate, but it isundeniable that it has become a permanent and irreversible feature ofinternational negotiation. Eban has argued that 'nothing has donemore to revolutionize the diplomatic craft than the current vogue ofpersistent media attention ... [and] there is no way of putting theclock back to an era in which negotiations were sheltered fromdomestic constituencies',6 while Ross Perot has said that 'embassiesare relics of the days of sailing ships. At one time, when you had noworld communication, your ambassador spoke for you in thatcountry. But now, with instantaneous communication around theworld, the ambassador is primarily in a social role'.7 Interrelated changes in politics, international relations, and masscommunication have greatly expanded the media's role in diplomacy.Growing mass participation in political processes has transformedmany societies from autocracies into democracies. The revolution incommunication and information technologies, the capability tobroadcast - often live - almost every significant development inworld events to almost every place on the globe, and the creation andexpansion of the Internet, have led to the globalization of electroniccommunication and journalism and to substantial growth innetworks, stations and communications consumers worldwide. These revolutionary changes have altered the meaning of powerin contemporary world politics. It is a nation or leader's image andcontrol of information flow, and not just their military and economicpower, that help determine their status in the internationalcommunity. 'Soft power', defined as 'the ability to achieve desiredoutcomes in international affairs through attraction rather thancoercion', is gradually replacing the more traditional forms ofpower.8 'In a rapidly changing world', wrote Nye and Owens,'information about what is occurring becomes a central commodityof international relations, just as the threat and use of military forcewas seen as the central power resource in an international systemovershadowed by the potential clash of superpowers'.9 The massmedia, global television in particular, have become a central source ofinformation about world affairs. As Mowlana has suggested, 'thetechnologies and institutions of communication that have become socentral to world politics and economics over the past couple ofDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 3

decades have fundamentally altered the nature and sources of power

and influence, both domestically and internationally'.10Consequently, Kalb has concluded that 'indeed, only the foolishforeign leader can any longer afford to underestimate the power ofTV news'.11 Politicians and journalists have suggested that the convergence ofthe revolutionary changes in politics and communication has createda new media-dominated governing system. Lugar has called thissystem 'medialism' and Gergen has referred to it as 'teledemocracy'.12A few observers have suggested that this transformation in mediapower has created a new phenomenon in foreign relations, known asthe 'CNN (Cable News Network) Effect', whereby - primarily incrises involving the possibility of humanitarian intervention -officials have lost control over decisionmaking to global television." These fundamental changes in diplomacy, politics and globalcommunication have created new modes of interactions betweenmedia and diplomacy. In turn, there has been an effort to coinphrases that capture the new role of the global media - and televisionin particular - in diplomacy: hence media diplomacy, teleplomacy,photoplomacy, soundbite diplomacy, instant diplomacy and real-timediplomacy. However, such developments notwithstanding, to datethe media's expanding role in diplomacy has received little realattention in the disciplines of international relations, political scienceand communication. Scholars have lagged behind politicians inunderstanding the significance of political communication indomestic and international affairs, with most studies of diplomacyignoring the role of mass communication; hence, existing knowledgeis fragmented and deals only with some facets of media-diplomacyinteractions.14 Kalb observed a few years ago that 'academics are now coming toappreciate what successful politicians have known for decades - thatthe press is a key player in the process of governance'.15 However,while this awareness is now becoming more widespread, the highlycomplex interdisciplinary nature of research on media anddiplomacy, coupled with a lack of analytical tools and models, hasinhibited progress in the field. Scholars have lumped together verydifferent media-diplomacy interactions under fashionable buttautological headings such as 'media diplomacy','televisiondiplomacy' or the 'CNN Effect', and this has resulted in conceptualconfusion.4 DIPLOMACY 8c STATECRAFT

This study offers three conceptual models designed to promote

systematic research into uses of the media as an instrument of foreignpolicy and international negotiations: public diplomacy, where stateand nonstate actors use the media and other channels ofcommunication to influence public opinion in foreign societies;media diplomacy, where officials use the media to communicate withactors and to promote conflict resolution; and media-brokerdiplomacy, where journalists temporarily assume the role ofdiplomats and serve as mediators in international negotiations. Thefirst two models already exist but are in need of considerablerevision. The third is new. Each model is appropriate only whencertain characteristics or conditions are present, and each hasdifferent professional and ethical ramifications for the three mainactors involved in diplomacy: officials, the media and public opinion.In this article, the presentation of each model follows a similarpattern: first, conceptual clarification and development; next,presentation and analysis of principal variants; finally, a discussion ofmajor effects and implications. It demonstrates the analyticalusefulness of the models by applying them to various examples andcase studies of significant contemporary diplomatic processes.

Public Diplomacy: Cultivating Favourable Images Abroad

The core idea of public diplomacy 'is one of direct communicationwith foreign peoples, with the aim of affecting their thinking and,ultimately, that of their governments'.16 In terms of content, 'itdescribes activities, directed abroad in the fields of information,education, and culture, whose objective is to influence a foreigngovernment, by influencing its citizens'.17 The mass media - andinternational broadcasting in particular - are just one of the channelsused in public diplomacy. Others include cultural and scientificexchanges of students, scholars, intellectuals and artists; participationin festivals and exhibitions; building and maintaining culturalcenters; teaching a language; and establishing local friendship leaguesand trade associations. The mass media channels are used directly toaffect the general public, while the other, mostly cultural, channelsare oriented toward elite audiences believed to have influence onpublic opinion. While uses of the mass media focus on current affairs,the cultural channels deal more with fundamental long-termperceptions of countries and societies. Three variants of publicDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 5

diplomacy are suggested based on the characteristics of the

participants, their goals and methods.VariantsThe basic variant. This refers to the use of the media and other meansto win the critical battle for the minds of people in countries withhostile governments. It seeks to create a favourable image for acountry's policies, actions, and political and economic system,assuming that if public opinion in the target society is persuaded toaccept that image, it will exert pressure on its government to alterexisting, hostile, attitudes and policy. The idea is to use publicdiplomacy to provide the public in the target society with morebalanced information on one's own country, in order to counter thedomestic propaganda of the target society's government. Thus, during the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Uniondeveloped and extensively utilized public diplomacy in order toshape public attitudes all over the world towards their respectiveideologies.18 Their main weapon was international broadcasting,including radio stations, such as the Voice of America (VOA), RadioLiberty and Radio Free Europe on the American side, and RadioMoscow on the Soviet side.19 In the late 1980s the US governmentadded overseas television programmes, such as Worldnet andDialogue, to its arsenal of public diplomacy media channels. TheReagan administration established Radio and Television Martidesigned to destabilize the Castro regime in Cuba, and President BillClinton established Radio Free Asia - primarily to promotedemocracy and protection of human rights in China - and Radio FreeIraq - to undermine Saddam Hussein's regime.

The nonstate transnational variant. Most definitions of public

diplomacy, including the. two cited earlier in this section, refer to thebasic Cold War variant. Although they describe the goals and meansof public diplomacy, they say nothing about those who initiate anduse it. This omission probably results from the widely held notionthat only governments conduct public diplomacy. While this mighthave been true for most of the Cold War years, it certainly has notbeen valid for at least the last two decades. Thus, in order to reflectthe growth in new nonstate actors and the interdependence betweenall the actors in the global arena, Signitzer and Coombs offered thisbroader definition of public diplomacy: 'The way in which both6 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

government and private individuals and groups influence directly or

indirectly those public attitudes and opinions which bear directly onanother government's foreign policy decisions.'20 The campaign for democracy and human rights in severalcountries, including China, which has been initiated and pursued bynonstate actors, demonstrates this broader nonstate transnationalapplication of public diplomacy. In 1989 the 'pro-democracy'opposition movement in China exerted pressure on the Chinesegovernment to begin democratic reforms and to respect humanrights.21 The United States criticized violations of human rights inChina, and many groups in America called for sanctions against theCommunist government. The Reagan and Bush administrationshowever, refrained from using sanctions such as the suspension oftrade privileges, arguing that these would only damage the fragilerelations between the two countries without helping the cause ofhuman rights. In May 1989 the pro-democracy opposition exploiteda dramatic media event - the summit meeting between the Sovietleader Mikhail Gorbachev and the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping -to demonstrate against their government's anti-democratic policiesand the lack of suitable jobs and income for the educated.22Demonstrators praised Gorbachev for the reforms he instituted in theUSSR and called on their government to follow his example. Thedemonstrations led to the violent crackdown at Tiananmen Square;their purpose was to exert public pressure on the Chinesegovernment and on Western governments to adopt harsher measuresagainst Chinese human rights violations. Live coverage of the demonstrations on CNN and other networkshelped the campaign.23 VOA and other international short-wavebroadcasters reported on the demonstrations and the inability of thegovernment to contain them. The Chinese government interpretedthe VOA broadcasts as interference in their domestic affairs and inturn jammed broadcasts and expelled journalists who reported theunrest.24 In this and other cases, such as the campaign to abolishapartheid in South Africa, dissident nonstate actors sought to achievetheir domestic goals by creating linkages with influential individualsand groups in foreign societies, particularly in the US and Europe.

The domestic public relations variant. In the basic variant, a

government uses its own means of communication, such as radiostations, to conduct public diplomacy. But in the domestic publicDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 7

relations variant it hires public relations firms and lobbyists in the

target country to achieve its aims.25 A government preferring thismethod believes it is much more effective than direct government-sponsored public diplomacy, and that it may help to conceal the trueforces and the funding sources behind the effort. The establishment ofa local support group or a movement in the target country could alsostrengthen the legitimacy and authenticity of the campaign. A localpublic relations firm is likely to know best how to achieve the desiredgoals in a given political and cultural context, how to identify theweaknesses in the positions of the government interested in thecampaign, and how to deal with them effectively. This variant of publicdiplomacy also includes using scientific knowledge and methods ofpublic opinion research known as 'strategic public diplomacy'.26 The domestic public relations variant has appeared several times,including during Kuwait's campaign for liberation in the 1990-91Gulf conflict. President Bush needed sufficient public, congressionaland media support to act to forcefully remove Saddam Hussein fromKuwait. To generate support from the American public for existingUS war policy and to prevent this policy from being changed, theKuwaiti monarchs in exile hired the American public relations firmHill and Knowlton to conduct a major public diplomacy campaignwithin the United States.27 More and more countries with image problems in the UnitedStates and the West are employing international public relations firmsto conduct public diplomacy on their behalf. Suffering from a severenegative drug image, Colombia, for example, hired the Sawyer MillerGroup to erase this image.28 It was reported that the military rulers ofBurma - suffering from US sanctions and often described in verynegative terms as generals who took office by hijacking a 1990election, keeping hundreds of opponents in inhumane prisons, anddealing with Asian drug lords - employed Jefferson WatermanInternational and the Atlantic Group to repair Burma's image and tooverturn US sanctions.29

EffectsAll three variants have significant effects on negotiators, the mediaand public opinion. Public diplomacy may be perceived in differentand sometimes contradictory ways by different actors. The Chinesegovernment saw the pro-democracy demonstrations as American useof the basic Cold War variant: the use of international broadcasting8 DIPLOMACY &c STATECRAFT

to inspire public unrest in China that would force the Chinese

government to alter its policy towards democratic reforms. From theUS perspective, however, the pro-democracy campaign in China wasan example of the nonstate transnational variant: an oppositiongroup in China using a media event on Chinese soil to exert publicpressure in the United States on the Bush administration to adoptharsher measures against Chinese human rights violations. Unless onesuggests that the Bush administration orchestrated the entirecampaign to put pressure on itself, the application of the conceptualvariants to the available data shows that the United Statesinterpretation was the correct one. Sometimes the domestic public relations variant includes a reversedgoal. If the classic goal of public diplomacy is to get the public of acountry to pressurize its own government to change its foreign ordomestic policy, occasionally in this variant, the goal is exactly theopposite, to direct public debate so that government policy does notchange. In this case, the government of state A supports the governmentof state B, but many segments in country A oppose their government'spolicy towards B. State B fears that under public pressure, governmentA may change its existing favourable policy towards B, so state B triesto persuade the public of A that B deserves A's support. The reversedgoal appeared, for example, in Kuwait's public diplomacy during theGulf War, when the goal was to prevent any erosion in public supportfor an American-led war to liberate Kuwait. The traditional basic variant of public diplomacy is used primarilyagainst authoritarian regimes while the other two, primarily thedomestic one, are used in democratic societies. The basic variant isbeing used against violations of human rights in Asia and againstregimes such as those of Cuba and Iraq. The end of the Cold War,however, and the democratization of many countries in the formerSoviet Union, in eastern Europe, and in other parts of the world,substantially reduced the main incentive for extensive use of thisvariant. In recent years public diplomacy has been used innontraditional formats, including new participants such as nonstateactors; new types of relations between state and nonstate actors; newgoals, such as cultivating support in a foreign country to maintainrather than change policy; and new means and techniques, such asthe hiring of public relations firms. The domestic public relations variant raises several ethical andprofessional problems. The activities of the public relations firm, HillDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 9

and Knowlton, hired by Kuwait during the Gulf conflict, became verycontroversial. One senior official of the firm explained that 'wedisseminated information in a void as a basis for Americans to formopinions', and another added 'teachers get awards. We get blamed forteaching'.30 But critics argued that the firm established a fake popularmovement, Citizens for a Free Kuwait, and used questionableevidence and suspect witnesses to influence public opinion in theUnited States and consequently to affect critical decisions in theUnited States and the UN.31 The means and performance of public diplomacy have alwaysbeen controversial. But officials and scholars seem to agree that ithas an even greater role in the post-Cold War era. In an articlepublished in the Washington Times (31 December 1996) under thetitle 'A New Diplomacy for a New Age', Lewis Manilow, theChairman of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy,argued that 'people have more power to influence their governmentsthan ever before', and that America needs a new diplomacy and anew kind of a diplomat 'who understands that a meeting with anenvironmental action group may have more long-term value than ameeting with the minister of the environment', and 'who canarticulate a case to a newly free media'. Laqueur also maintainedthat public diplomacy in its broadest sense has become a moreimportant instrument for dealing with US problems in the post-ColdWar era than the traditional military and economic tools.32 Nye andOwens explained that 'America's increasing technical ability tocommunicate with the public in foreign countries, literally over theheads of their rulers via satellite, provides a great opportunity tofoster democracy'.33 Metzl also suggested that when great powersare unable or unwilling to intervene militarily to stop mass humanrights abuses, the international community should employ'information intervention', including monitoring and blocking radioand television broadcasts that incite violence and genocide, andcountering them with peace broadcasting.34

Media Diplomacy: Promoting Conflict Resolution

Media diplomacy has frequently been confused with public diplomacy.isAfter defining public diplomacy as propaganda, Van Dinh explainedthat this diplomacy has 'become synonymous with TV diplomacy.Politicians and diplomats use TV for international propaganda, which10 DIPLOMACY Sc STATECRAFT

in turn merges into domestic propaganda'.36 But most of the examples

he gave for TV diplomacy did not constitute propaganda. The televisedultimatum President Kennedy sent to the USSR about the 1962 CubanMissile Crisis, Nixon's visit to China in 1972 and Sadat's 1977 visit toJerusalem were not acts of propaganda; they were designed to achievebreakthroughs in crises and conflicts. In a pioneering book, Cohenexplained the differences between public diplomacy and mediadiplomacy in the following way: 'Media diplomacy includes all thoseaspects of public diplomacy where the media are involved as well asothers not associated with public diplomacy including the sending ofsignals by governments through the media, and the use of the media asa source of information'.37 Note that this definition seeks to characterizemedia diplomacy both as a part of and as somehow distinct from publicdiplomacy. Former wrote that 'any effort to influence press accounts ofevents, personalities, or agreements on behalf of a nation-state is publicdiplomacy'.38 Ebo defined media diplomacy as 'the use of the media toarticulate and promote foreign policy'.39 This article suggests that, based on different phases in conflict,conflict resolution processes and policy goals, it is necessary todistinguish between two fundamentally different efforts to influencepress accounts: public diplomacy, when the sides are engaged inconfrontation and primarily employ propaganda, and mediadiplomacy, when one or both sides are ready for conflict resolutionand seek negotiation and agreements. In this study, media diplomacyrefers to officials' uses of the media to communicate with state andnonstate actors, to build confidence and advance negotiations, and tomobilize public support for agreements. Media diplomacy is pursuedthrough various routine and special media activities including pressconferences, interviews and leaks, as well as visits of heads of state andmediators to rival countries and spectacular media events organized tousher in new policy eras. Here again, three variants are suggested.

VariantsThe basic communication variant. The argument suggested by Woodthat 'when politicians wish to mediate they use diplomatic channels,secure and private; when they wish to confront they use open formsof mass communication'40 requires substantial modification. In theabsence of direct channels of communication, or when one side isunsure how the other would react to conditions for negotiations orto proposals for conflict resolution, officials use the media, with orDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 11

without attribution, to send signals and messages to leaders of rival

states and nonstate actors.41 State Department spokesperson NicholasBurns admitted: I sometimes read carefully calibrated statements to communicate with those governments with which we have no diplomatic relations - Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea. ... Given the concentration of journalists in Washington and our position in the world, the US is uniquely situated to use television to our best advantage, with our friends as well as with our adversaries.42 Sometimes, during grave international crises, the media providesthe only channel for communication and negotiation between rivalactors. During the first phase of the 1979-81 Iran hostage crisis, theUnited States communicated with the terrorists holding the hostagesexclusively through the press.43 A similar case occurred in the 1985hijacking of a TWA jetliner to Beirut.44 Officials often use globaltelevision rather than traditional diplomatic channels to delivermessages: during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, US Secretary of StateJames Baker delivered the last ultimatum to Saddam Hussein throughCNN, and not through the US Ambassador to Iraq.45 Similarly, inJanuary 1998, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami chose CNN tosend a conciliatory message to the United States.46 Officials also use the media, and even attitudes towards journalistson rival sides, to indicate peace intentions. In January 1994, Syrianleader Hafez-al Assad met with President Clinton in Geneva in orderto convey Syria's interest in peace with Israel. At the same time,however, Assad barred Israeli reporters from participating in the pressconference he held with Clinton at the end of the meeting, indicatingSyria's lack of sincere intentions.47 This changed in September 1994when Syrian foreign minister Farouq al-Shara answered a question byan Israeli reporter for the first time - at a press conference in London- and later gave a first-ever interview to Israeli television. Althoughthe contents of these interviews were disappointing to Israel, Syria'snew attitude towards Israeli journalists was seen as an attempt to buildthe confidence required for peace with Israel.48

The travelling diplomacy variant. 'Travelling diplomacy' refers to the

use of correspondents accompanying heads of state, foreign ministers,or other high level officials when they travel abroad to accomplish12 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

diplomatic missions. Revolutions in transportation and communication

made this variant possible and have allowed it to develop. As air travelhas become simple, convenient and inexpensive, heads of state andministers have become more and more involved in direct mediationand negotiation, both in bilateral and multilateral settings. They oftenspeak on secured telephone lines and meet frequently. They fly abroadon their own planes with many correspondents accompanying themand reporting their moves. This development has enabled high-ranking officials to use correspondents aboard their planes and thosewho are accompanying them to send signals, suggest proposals, makethreats, and in general communicate with policymakers and domesticand global audiences. Often this can be done without attribution:thus, a correspondent travelling with an American secretary of state,for example, may be required by the preestablished ground rules of hisinterview to characterize his source as 'a senior State Departmentofficial' aboard the plane. The classic example of this variant was Henry Kissinger's1973-74 'shuttle diplomacy' in the Middle East. Although Kissingerdevoted little attention to the media in his public statements,memoirs and writings, he is probably the inventor of modern mediadiplomacy.49 After the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Kissinger became amediator between the two sides/0 His relentless efforts to achievedisengagement and interim agreements between Israel and itsneighbours included the extensive use of senior American diplomaticcorrespondents aboard his plane.sl He gave them backgroundreports, information and leaks in an effort to affect the negotiationsand his mediation effort. Mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict atthat time was extremely difficult, and frequently the talks ran intodeadlocks. Kissinger's media diplomacy helped to secure theconcessions needed to break the deadlocks. Kissinger was able to develop an intimate relationship with thecorrespondents aboard his plane, who knew more than the USambassadors in the places he visited. For local journalists,policymakers and diplomats these correspondents became instantsources of information about the secretary of state's aims and plans.Sensing the growing power of television and soundbites, Kissingergave special attention to television reporters aboard his plane:Marvin Kalb of CBS, Ted Koppel of ABC and Richard Valeriani ofNBC. They and others - some of the best-known and most influentialjournalists in the United States - fully supported his diplomaticmissions and admired his sophisticated techniques."DIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 13

Many leaders have adopted some of Kissinger's techniques of

media diplomacy.53 Today, significant visits abroad are usuallyextensively covered by global television and the local media. AnAmerican president visiting foreign countries is accompanied byhundreds of correspondents who follow every step of his schedule.Some are allowed to accompany him on his plane. This providesopportunities for media diplomacy but also requires very carefulpreparation and implementation of ideas and actions.

The media events variant. Media events represent media diplomacy at

its best, attracting wide audiences around the world and interruptingscheduled broadcasting.54 They are broadcast live, organized outsidethe media, pre-planned, and presented with reverence and ceremony.Dayan and Katz identified several direct effects of media events ondiplomacy: trivializing the role of ambassadors, breaking diplomaticdeadlocks and creating a climate conducive to negotiations, andcreating a favourable climate for a contract or to seal a bargain.55 Thedistinction between the last two effects is significant because mediaevents can be used at the onset of negotiations to build confidenceand facilitate negotiations, or at the end of negotiations to mobilizepublic support for an agreement that has already been achieved. I suggest the existence of an intermediary effect that occurs whenofficials use media events to cultivate public support for a peaceprocess after the conclusion of the initial phase and before moving onto the next phase. This effect typically appears in cases where abreakthrough has been achieved, but the sides have a long way to gobefore translating principles into a final peace agreement. Theintermediary effect mobilizes sufficient public support inside thesocieties involved for the next phase in the negotiations. All threeeffects of media events have appeared in 'summit diplomacy' andArab-Israeli peacemaking. Gorbachev's summits with Reagan and Bush demonstrate how thetwo superpowers used the media in the transition from the Cold Warto the post-Cold War era. The summits reflected the dramaticchanges in superpower relations. As media events they motivatedindividuals, groups and nations 'to reassess their relations with eachother in light of the actions taking place live in front of their eyes'.56The first 1985 Gorbachev-Reagan summit demonstrated the initialeffect, the use of a media event to begin a process of conciliation. Thefollowing summits demonstrated the intermediary effect, where each14 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

event represented a step forward in the movement from

confrontation to cooperation. The Gorbachev-Bush summit held inWashington in May 1990 ended the Cold War. Gorbachev used thesummits with Reagan and Bush to cultivate public support at homeand abroad for his major political and economic reforms. Reaganused the summits to legitimize the dramatic shift in his attitudestoward the Soviet Union, which he had branded 'the evil empire' atthe beginning of his presidency. Media events became a popular and frequently used mediadiplomacy technique in Arab-Israeli peacemaking. The November1977 visit of Egypt's president Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem and the1991 Madrid Peace conference demonstrate the initial effect.57 Thesigning ceremonies of three major documents represent theintermediary effect: the Camp David Accords of September 1978, theIsrael-PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) Declaration ofPrinciples of September 1993, and the Israel-Jordan WashingtonDeclaration of July 1994. The signing ceremonies of two peacetreaties demonstrate the 'sealing effect' of media events: theIsraeli-Egyptian peace treaty of March 1979 and the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994.

EffectsGlobal television has increased the speed at which diplomaticmessages are exchanged from weeks to minutes. This change in thepace of diplomatic communication represents a serious dilemma forpolicymakers, particularly in crisis situations. If they respondimmediately without taking the time to consider policy optionscarefully, they may make a mistake. But if they offer no response,they may create the impression, both at home and abroad, that theyare confused, do not know what to do, or have no control over theevent or the issue at hand. Policymakers, wrote Hoge, worry about a "loss of control" and decry the absence of quiet time to deliberate choices, reach private agreements and mold the public's understanding. ... Today's pervasive media increases the pressure on politicians to respond promptly to news accounts that by their very immediacy are incomplete, without context and sometimes wrong. Yet friend and foe have come to expect signals instantly, and any vacuum will be filled quickly by something.58DIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 15

While fast diplomatic communication may cause policy mistakes,

it may also enable policymakers to respond effectively to adeveloping crisis. Global television coverage may function as a real-time source of information on events that require immediate action,which in turn may have a crucial impact on the final outcome. Dueto the live CNN coverage of the August 1991 Russian coup attempt,Bush felt that Gorbachev's government had a chance to survive andwhen *he spoke out at news conferences in support of the democraticforces in Moscow, his words would travel much swifter by global TVthan by any diplomatic channel. These facts, in addition to thepictures of resistance inside and outside the Russian parliamentbuilding, energized the resisters'.59 Media events are likely to fail if the participants do not cooperateto make them successful. This was the main reason for the failure ofthe 1991 Arab-Israeli Peace Conference held in Madrid. Followingthe victory in the Gulf War, the United States initiated the Madridmedia event to break the deadlock in Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Theevent was held under the joint sponsorship of Bush and Gorbachevand was covered by some 4,500 journalists. However, the conferencefailed to produce the intended results due to the absence of evenminimal cooperation among the adversaries, who felt the UnitedStates had pressurized them into participation in the conference. Thelack of progress contrasted sharply with the high expectations forrapid peacemaking that the media had engendered, thereby leadingto disappointment and confusion. Media diplomacy includes various uses of the media by officialsand mediators to promote negotiation and conflict resolution. Thismodel helps to place communication-based diplomatic processes andaffairs, such as media events, in the proper context. Media events aredesigned jointly by two or more former enemies to mobilize domesticand world public opinion for changing their relations or foragreements. It would therefore be more appropriate to define themas media diplomacy pursued in the context of conflict resolution thanas public diplomacy, usually pursued when relations are antagonistic.

Media-Broker Diplomacy: Journalists Turning Mediators

Theories of negotiation and conflict resolution emphasize thesignificance of 'pre-negotiation' stages, the role of 'third parties' and'track two diplomacy'.60 In the pre-negotiation stage, the sides explore16 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

the advantages and shortcomings of a specific negotiation process and

make a decision - based on information received from the other partyand other domestic and external considerations - on whether to enterformal negotiations. Third parties are often needed to help enemiesbegin negotiations: these can be formal representatives ofsuperpowers, neutral states, international and global organizations, orordinary individuals, who facilitate negotiations by talking to partiesin conflict and persuading them to consider negotiation as a viableoption. Third parties are particularly helpful in the pre-negotiationstage. Track two diplomacy refers to unofficial mediators and informalforms of negotiation. It is possible and useful to view journalists actingindependently as 'third parties', pursuing 'track two diplomacy'particularly in 'pre-negotiation stages'. Arno described the news media as third parties in national andinternational conflict, helping primarily to transmit messagesbetween the sides.61 While discussing the globalization of electronicjournalism, Gurevitch also noted the new role of journalists as'international political brokers'.62 He cited the examples of WalterCronkite from CBS News, who helped to arrange Sadat's historic visitto Jerusalem, and television news anchors, such as Dan Rather fromCBS News, who rushed to interview Saddam Hussein in Baghdadduring the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. These examples, argues Gurevitch,suggest that globalized television 'may launch reportorial initiativesthat tend to blur the distinction between the roles of reporters anddiplomats'. News anchors interviewing the Iraqi president 'slid,almost imperceptibly, into the roles of advocates, as if representingtheir own government, and negotiators, exploring with theirinterviewee avenues for resolving the crisis'. The examples cited by Gurevitch and others imply that the modelis not only a hypothetical abstraction but actually has occurred incontemporary diplomacy.631 suggest Media-broker diplomacy as aterm to capture the essence of this new conceptual model. It refers tounofficial third party roles played by the news media primarily inpre-negotiation stages. The definition itself points to the maindifferences between media diplomacy and media-broker diplomacy.The differences lie in the actual activities of the journalists in the twomodels and in the source of that activity. In media diplomacyreporters pursue their profession and follow moves initiated bypolicymakers, who in effect use the media in ways outlined above.But in media-broker diplomacy, journalists act more as diplomatsDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 17

initiating and conducting critical diplomatic moves. Geyer and

Newsom suggested that reporters who interviewed leadersunavailable to diplomats due to official policy or other constraints,such as Fidel Castro or PLO leader Yasser Arafat before the Oslobreakthrough in his relations with Israel, were conductingdiplomacy.64 However, according to the distinction suggested here, aninterview used by a leader to influence public opinion in anothercountry is public diplomacy, and it is media diplomacy if the purposeis to transmit policy messages to a rival leader or country, and notmedia-broker diplomacy, which consists of mediation andnegotiation of terms and conditions. Three variants of media-brokerdiplomacy are suggested.

VariantsThe direct intervention variant. This variant refers to situations wherejournalists are actively and directly engaged in internationalnegotiation. Cronkite's role in the initial critical stage of theIsraeli-Egyptian peace process well illustrates this classic variant ofthe media-broker model. After Sadat stated in November 1977 thathe was ready to travel to Jerusalem to seek peace with Israel,Cronkite asked him what he needed to go. Just a 'proper invitation'from Israel, Sadat responded." Cronkite followed up by inquiringhow soon he could go, with Sadat answering '[at] the earliest timepossible'. Cronkite took the initiative by suggesting a possible timetable: 'that could be, say, within a week?' to which Sadat responded'you can say that, yes'. Cronkite informed Israeli Prime MinisterMenachem Begin of the results of his conversation with Sadat,causing Begin to respond: 'tell him [Sadat] he's got an invitation'.This reaction, 'tell him...', demonstrates how Begin perceivedCronkite as an actual mediator and not just as a journalist. Cronkiterecalled that he pressed Begin for details, with Begin agreeing tomake a statement to his parliament the following day and later to talkto the US ambassador to Israel about forwarding the invitation. A fewdays later Sadat arrived in Israel and history was made. Cronkite did not believe Sadat would really go to Jerusalem andsaid he only wanted to 'knock down the speculation over the visit'.But lack of motivation or of a special plan to engage in diplomacydoes not mean that the reporter was not performing a diplomaticrole. Cronkite acknowledged his diplomatic contribution anddistinguished between unintended planning and results:18 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

A problem with the anchor's exalted position is the tendency

for her or him to slide from observer to player. Sometimes this is the unintended result of a purely journalistic exercise, such as our Sadat-Begin interviews ... the important point is that television journalism, in this case at least, speeded up the process, brought it into the open, removed a lot of possibly obstructionist middlemen, and made it difficult for principals to renege on their very public agreement.66Any professional diplomat would be extremely proud ofachievements like these. Cronkite's colleagues in the printed presspraised his intervention. William Safire, for example, wrote in theNew York Times (17 November 1977), 'It took Walter Cronkite ofCBS, placing an electronic hand on the backs of Israel and Egypt, tobring them together'.

The bridging variant. This variant typically occurs when

representatives of rival sides are brought together on the air fordiscussions of the issues dividing them. It is more likely to happenwhen there is no formal third party helping enemies to engage inconflict resolution. A well-known and respected journalist associatedwith a highly regarded programme has a better chance of successfullyperforming this role. Ted Koppel's Nightline is a good example ofthis variant.67 Two particular special programmes that Nightlinebroadcast, in 1985 from South Africa and in 1988 from Israel, werecredited with facilitating significant steps toward conflict resolutionin these countries.68 In South Africa, Koppel brought togetherrepresentatives of the government and the African National Congress(ANC) for the first time. In Israel, he brought togetherrepresentatives of Israel and the PLO on one stage for the first time. It should be noted that in both cases the representatives of bothsides were mainly interested in talking to the moderator and ininfluencing American public opinion, and not in a meaningfuldialogue. The Palestinians even insisted on placing a wall on the stagebetween themselves and the Israeli participants. Regardless of theinitial motivation of the rival sides, Koppel pursued classic means ofsuccessful pre-negotiation by bestowing credibility and legitimizingthe participants, empowering and equalizing the parties, andproviding direct communication. These means helped to realize goalsof pre-negotiation, including the removal of psychological barriers toDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 19

negotiation, eliminating mutual dehumanization and demonization,

defining the conflict as a mutual problem, considering negotiation asa viable option to resolve the conflict, cultivating domestic support fornegotiation, and emphasizing the need to open official negotiations. The Israeli and the Palestinian participants felt that the programmewas a significant diplomatic event pushing them towards official directnegotiation. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian representative, said that'the show broke barriers. It made acceptable the idea of an encounterbetween Palestinians and Israelis'.69 Ehud Olmert, an Israelirepresentative, commented that 'there was this sense that this wasmore than just a TV show, that this was a political event, aninternational event, that TV had become more than just a technicalinstrument'. A few years later, Israel and the PLO conducted officialindirect talks in Washington and direct secret talks in Oslo, leading tomutual recognition and to a major breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinianrelations. Likewise, the white government in South Africa officiallynegotiated with the ANC an agreement to end apartheid. Nightline's motto: 'bringing people together who are worldsapart' reveals the programme's self-declared mission. Observers haveagreed: 'What else is Nightline but an electronic negotiating tablewith the anchor bringing combatants together, searching for answers,probing for common ground? Koppel may never get Kissinger's oldjob, but he is already television's Secretary of State.'70 Koppel, asnoted earlier, was one of the selected correspondents accompanyingKissinger on his diplomatic travels, and was exposed to his uses of themedia to advance negotiations.

The secret variant. Secret media-broker diplomacy appears to be a

contradiction in terms. Journalists are supposed to uncover events,not to conceal them, and officials are hesitant to employ journalists indelicate negotiations, since this could increase the risk of prematuredisclosure. Yet, foreign affairs bureaucracies are known for being rigidand often resistant to fundamental changes in relations with rivalcountries, and their personnel may leak information on negotiations,particularly if they oppose them. Thus, in certain sensitive casesofficials prefer outsiders, including reporters, to ensure secrecy.71 Anexperienced journalist, who enjoys the trust of high-level politicians orofficials, best knows how to protect secret negotiations from hiscolleagues. Also, a veteran diplomatic correspondent will haveaccumulated considerable knowledge and experience about the20 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

intricacies of negotiations, perhaps as much as professional diplomats,

and can execute a diplomatic mission effectively. At the height of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis a senior official atthe Soviet Embassy in Washington used John Scali, the diplomaticcorrespondent for ABC News, as a go-between for the US and theSoviet Union.72 Scali had excellent ties with US officials, who valued hisaccurate and professional reporting. Anxious to know whether theirproposal to end the crisis would be acceptable to the United States butfearing to lose face and credibility should it be rejected, the Sovietsasked Scali to pass it on to US officials. Although American officialswere somewhat confused about the communication channel selectedby the Soviets, Secretary of State Dean Rusk took the proposalseriously, met with Scali, and gave him America's positive response.73 Scali had to cope with major professional and ethical dilemmas,since he continued to report on the crisis while knowing that therewas another significant story in which he was participating: 'Icovered the entire Cuban missile crisis on TV and radio and neversaid one word, even while I was covering it, about what I was doingbehind the scenes.'74 If Scali had ceased his routine reporting,colleagues and officials might have suspected that something waswrong and questioned him about his activities. Scali explained thatparallel reporting and secret mediation was not difficult for himbecause 'it was a crisis of magnitude that surely represented anincredible disaster had it reached what appeared to be its logicalconclusion'. Even after the crisis, Scali claimed that he could notreveal his role, because Kennedy had asked him to continuemediating in an effort to get Soviet bombers out of Cuba.

EffectsFour parameters should help to examine media-broker diplomacy:initiation and motivation, awareness, action, and consequences.Initiation and motivation refer to the identity of those who initiatemedia-broker diplomacy: the journalists themselves, policymakers, orother interested parties. Awareness refers to the correspondents' ownknowledge and understanding of their actions. Action refers to thespecific measures taken by a reporter in order to promote adiplomatic move, and consequences are the results of these measures.Application of these parameters to the various examples revealdifferent types of media-broker diplomacy. Cronkite did not preplana diplomatic role but was drawn into one, Koppel clearly initiatedDIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 21

television electronic town meetings between rivals on Nightline,

while Scali was drafted into a secret diplomatic mission. All thejournalists involved in the cases discussed here were aware of themediation roles they were performing. Cronkite and Koppel tookdeliberate actions to facilitate negotiations, while Scali was morepassive. The consequences of all these various mediation efforts weresignificant and were viewed by both the participants and observers asa major contribution to the beginning of official negotiations. The variant pursued by Cronkite was the only spontaneous one.In background conversations or in special interviews with high-levelpolicymakers, experienced and well-known journalists may identify apotential for negotiations (Sadat-Begin) or attempt to negotiate onbehalf of a particular actor (the US versus Saddam Hussein). In anofficial interview, a series of questions and answers may create adiplomatic move or accelerate one that is already in the making. Inthis mode, journalists function primarily as catalysts for negotiations.All three journalist-mediators were well known news anchors andreporters who used their positions to influence sensitive negotiations.Kissinger accurately identified the source of their power: whilereferring to American television coverage of the war in Vietnam hepointed out that 'the news anchor turned into a political figure, in thesense that only a president could have reached as many people - andcertainly not with such regularity'.75 From the governmental perspective, only officially authorizeddiplomacy is legitimate. 'There is no place in diplomacy forjournalists or anyone not authorized by the government', saysHodding Carter.76 His colleague in the Carter administration, RobertBeckel, argues that it 'is a big mistake' for journalists to be 'activelyengaged in diplomacy', but he considers Scali's role to be legitimatebecause it was authorized 'and the government felt that he was thebest avenue to pass information back and forth'. Senior Americanpolicymakers were divided on the contributions of Nightline toconflict resolution. Harold Saunders, an Assistant Secretary of State,said that 'television diplomacy generally hinders foreign policy. If youtake Nightline, etc., I don't think those dialogues are particularlyuseful because they are not very well prepared'. He explained thatthe participants were engaged in debates and scoring points insteadof 'learning how to handle sensitive issues creatively'. Phyllis Oakely,a State Department Spokeswoman, however, argued that 'the KoppelArab-Israeli show was well done. It was useful in presenting the22 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

passions of both sides and how difficult it is to make an agreement'.

Richard Haass made a similar observation, adding that theprogramme 'helped at the margins. And that's not bad. A lot ofhistory happens at the margins'.77

ConclusionsThis study offers three conceptual models that serve in defining andanalyzing various roles of the media in contemporary diplomacy. Thefirst two - more familiar - models, public and media diplomacy, havebeen redefined, revised, updated and restructured. The third model,media-broker diplomacy, has been created to analyze a relatively newand unique involvement of journalists in diplomacy. Each modelcorresponds to a particular basic media-diplomacy relationship. Figure 1 clearly illustrates the main differences between the threemodels. The figure is particularly helpful in distinguishing betweenpublic diplomacy and media diplomacy. While both these models dealwith uses of the media to influence governments and public opinion,they substantially differ in contexts, sides, time frames, goals,methods, targets and media. Media diplomacy is pursued in thecontext of conflict resolution, while public diplomacy is conducted inthe context of confrontation; media diplomacy usually aims at shortterm results while public diplomacy aims at long range outcomes;media diplomacy is more specific than public diplomacy - whereas thelatter is designed to create a friendly climate within a foreign societytowards fundamental political and social issues, such as capitalismversus communism or human rights, the former is designed to createa favourable climate for a particular diplomatic process at a particulartime and in a particular context. In addition, while public diplomacyprimarily entails one-sided propaganda designed to foster an imageabroad, media diplomacy primarily entails a serious appeal, sometimesmade jointly by two rival sides, for conflict resolution directed at bothdomestic and foreign constituencies; finally, public diplomacy isconducted through multiple channels while media diplomacy isexclusively conducted through the mass media. Media-brokerdiplomacy is somewhat different from media diplomacy in context,time frame, goals and medium but is very different in initiators,method, sides and target. While officials usually initiate, conduct anddominate media diplomacy, journalists usually initiate, conduct anddominate media-broker diplomacy.DIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 23

The study of the media's involvement in diplomacy is becoming

increasingly important as heads of state and nonstate actors makeincreasing use of the media as a major instrument for communicationand negotiation. Prominent journalists have even occasionallyassumed the role of diplomats, both in crises and peacemakingsituations. These uses of the media have had significant impact on theconduct and coverage of diplomacy. In the information age, theinclusion, and sometimes the exclusion, of the media from diplomacywill have even more dramatic effects on negotiations.78 As a greaternumber of people all over the world watch the same news, leadersand government officials of state and nonstate actors will use themass media, particularly television, more frequently in both actualnegotiations and in the pre-negotiation stages. Furthermore, themedia's growing involvement in diplomacy has practical implicationsfor officials pursuing peacemaking processes. The media can help orhinder negotiations. Knowledge of how to avoid the pitfalls or howto use the media to advance negotiations may often determinewhether a particular peacemaking effort is successful. The complex nature of the media's involvement in diplomacy isalso demonstrated by examining, the issue of influence and effects.Although there is a wide consensus that the media has transformeddiplomacy, the question remains whether the media has functionedprimarily as an autonomous actor (and an influential, even dominantone) or as a sophisticated tool in the hands of officials.. In the publicand media diplomacy models, the media is used by officials, while inthe media-broker model,- the media functions predominantly as anautonomous actor.24 DIPLOMACY & STATECRAFT

The media has brought new - primarily nonstate - actors into theforeign policymaking process, and has been a source of quicklyupdated and available information to policymakers.79 It has alsoaccelerated the pace of diplomatic communication from weeks tominutes and has focused world attention on crises in places such asBosnia, Rwanda or Somalia, and on global issues such as terrorism,global warming and human rights. In some cases leaders have had toaddress these issues even when it appears that they have not beenhigh on their agenda. The media diplomacy and public diplomacy models show thatleaders and officials have demonstrated considerable ability toharness the growing power of global communication to achievediplomatic goals at home and abroad. Often, they have had morecontrol over the media process than the journalists themselves.Newsom said, for example, that 'in the last analysis it is the executivethat has the power to dominate the news', and Neuman argued that'media technology is rarely as powerful in the hands of journalists asit is in the hands of political figures who can summon the talent toexploit the new invention'.80 The media, therefore, has transformeddiplomacy by providing leaders and officials with new tools ratherthan by functioning as an independent actor. Despite the obvious significance of the media's roles incontemporary and future diplomacy, be it as a political tool or as anindependent actor, research on this topic is still scarce andunderdeveloped. Better understanding of these roles is vital not onlyfor the sake of progress in the field of research but also for actualnegotiations. This article offers conceptual models for analysis thatcan help to explore and understand how the media has affecteddiplomacy and provide a basic intellectual infrastructure that canhelp to establish the necessary interdisciplinary bridges betweenislands of theory on media-diplomacy relations in internationalrelations, political science, and communication.

Bar Ian University and Holon Institute of Technology, Israel

NOTES

1. Harold G. Nicolson, Diplomacy (London: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn 1963). 2. This definition represents a revised and expanded version of a formulation suggested by David N. Fransworth in International Relations, An Introduction (Chicago: Nelson- Hall, 2nd edn 1992), p.179.DIPLOMACY IN THE MEDIA AGE 25